Are you for open borders?

[revolutionisnow]

Mises was involved with Coudenhove-Kalergi and the Pan-Europa Movement, which laid the groundwork for the EU. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3021synarchism.html

 

[Mini-Me]

Mises was involved with Coudenhove-Kalergi and the Pan-Europa Movement, which laid the groundwork for the EU. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3021synarchism.html

It's interesting how that entirely unsourced article from www.larouchepub.com doesn't even mention Mises, let alone elaborate on the specifics of his involvement and implicate him in some kind of wrongdoing. You're cherry-picking his brush with Coudenhove-Kalergi - a colleague from NYU - to hit Mises with guilt by association. Yes, he apparently worked on currency issues for Kalergi's International Paneuropean Union, but considering the organization's stated goals include liberalism, that doesn't seem too shady or out-of-character for a guy like Mises...who was, after all, a classical liberal. Maybe the organization was in fact the precursor to what became the EU, but Mises did not have a crystal ball, and you'll have to do a lot more to demonstrate that he was knowingly complicit in engineering tyranny. From Mises's standpoint, working on their currency issues at the request of an NYU colleague would certainly be better than letting some other idiot do it...especially if the organization might gain power, and the other guys around were a bunch of Keynesians.

You're trying to condemn a man for an association he had during a tiny fraction of his life, when every single one of his writings is consistent with limited government and laissez-faire free market economics...unless, of course, you'd like to argue that those very ideas are snares for the foolish. (In that case, you'd be advocating centralized power far more than Mises ever did.)

 

[Met Income]

The whole premise of your philosophy is fantasy. From Corporatist America to An Cap? You are delusional if you believe it possible. Your time is better served working towards returning the thoughts of Americans to those of September 17, 1787 first and then maybe someone will listen to your philosophy. Until then, you are but a danger to what is left of my fellow countrymen and their freedoms. Hell, you won't even accept the fact that you are a citizen. How can you propose to change anything under that premise?

You still have not proven how I've described a fantasy land. And that's because I haven't.

The Constitution? Even if I did believe in a piece a paper, the Articles of Confederation is far superior freedom-wise than the Constitution. The Constitution was the result when the elites realized the AoC didn't give them enough of a monopoly of power. The Constitution expanded Federal power and tyranny.

It is self evident to anyone with the eyes, ears and a mind to discern that what you propose is bunk without first reclaiming those rights held to be self evident and unalienable to all by our founders. You have the right as an American citizen to spout your crap and I have a right as an American citizen to decry you.

I have the right to free speech because I own myself and because you do not have the right to infringe it. Rights do not come from government or pieces of paper. Now, you didn't even come close to answering the questions. I'll ask again.

Where is your evidence that I lied? Where is your evidence that my goal is destruction and chaos?

You are a citizen by birth whether you accept it or not. Other than treason or renunciation you have no leg to stand on legally. If you consider that akin to being owned as in the big plantation since April 12, 1861, then do something constructive like educate men in the mindset of a Patriot of September 17, 1787.
Otherwise you are no more than a delegate of destruction and chaos and your true master is definitely in question.
Your agenda is not in line with the intent of this board as I understand it.

I cannot be a citizen if I have not consented to being a citizen. I cannot force you to become a Boy Scout without your approval. It makes no sense. You are not a part of something unless you join it.

My master is myself. I do not give away rights to the State like you do. The system that takes your wealth and forces you to comply with their laws is partially your master.

September 17, 1787 was the day that tyranny increased.

 

[Met Income]

No one is forcing the Constitution on you, the Constitution is a document limiting government, no one is "forcing it" on you, you don't have to bear arms or speak freely.

It's using force to stop me from non-violent actions. I wish you would take your own advice:

Tyranny is when the state forces people to stay in relationships

 

[Met Income]

Where you are born and where you hold citizenship are the same thing, unless of course you renounce your citizenship, and back up your words with actions. Of course you won't do that, you will continue to vote, use public facilities, get your tax credits, your stimulus checks and at the same time claim that you are not a citizen and you do not consent.

Citizenship is voluntarily, you can chose to renounce citizenship without interference. But you won't do that.

Where I was born was where I was born. I do not wish to become a citizen of the USA, therefore, I am not. I do not renounce anything that I was never a part of. You're saying I'm bound to something because I was born somewhere. That's slavery. Slavery is immoral and illegitimate, sorry. You're going to need a better excuse to defend tyranny.

If citizenship is voluntary, then it cannot be involuntarily forced onto me at birth. You contradicted yourself.

 

[Dieseler]

You still have not proven how I've described a fantasy land. And that's because I haven't.

Like I said before, the entire premise of taking this country from a state of Corporatism to An Cap is ludicrous to begin with.
We still have our Constitution however and as difficult as it is to get our Government to follow it, that in itself is evidence itself that your An Cap philosophy is but a fantasy when placed in comparison to the struggle of returning The Republic to the Constitution,
Which is the most realistic goal to achieve first and foremost before anything else can be considered.

The Constitution? Even if I did believe in a piece a paper, the Articles of Confederation is far superior freedom-wise than the Constitution. The Constitution was the result when the elites realized the AoC didn't give them enough of a monopoly of power. The Constitution expanded Federal power and tyranny.

You won't get back to March of 1781 until you get back to September 17, 1787 and you certainly won't ever reach your fantasy of An Cap society until you return America back to it's roots. Continue to struggle like a cat in a bag if you wish while the sane among us work towards a more realistic goal.

I have the right to free speech because I own myself and because you do not have the right to infringe it. Rights do not come from government or pieces of paper. Now, you didn't even come close to answering the questions. I'll ask again.

Where is your evidence that I lied? Where is your evidence that my goal is destruction and chaos?

I understand Our Unalienable Rights and I appreciate Our Founders making it most clear on July 4th, 1776 through the Declaration and also through ratification of The Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791 and despite your insinuating differently, without those pieces of paper and the men who drew them up, I sincerely doubt that you and I would be carrying on this discussion at all.
Are you a citizen of The United States of America? Do you not claim a gun is held to your head in order that you file a tax return and do you not fill it out anyway even though you defiantly claim you are not a citizen?
I don't know, is that not a little deceptive for one who claims such high and mighty morals above the rest of us mere citizens?
If you are so high and mighty above the rest of us with your grand moral philosophy, then why are you not sharing the same fate as Sherry Jackson or Ed and Elaine Brown.
I think the answer is pretty clear.
You behave just as you are expected to in reality, you are a citizen when asked in the real world but you deny your citizenship when you are on a internet forum and claim a philosophical superiority over everyone else that is dealing with the same problems in reality that you are.
That is the lie.

I cannot be a citizen if I have not consented to being a citizen. I cannot force you to become a Boy Scout without your approval. It makes no sense. You are not a part of something unless you join it.

Do you not file that tax return? Oh yes, that's right, you do don't you?
That's quite a stretch in comparison there with The Boy Scouts of America vs. Birthright Citizenship to The United States of America. What an asinine comparison when the entire scope and topic of this thread to begin with is over boundaries and people illegally crossing them who would likely sell their own souls to trade places with you to be here and enjoy the freedoms that you have legally just for being born here. I can understand why they do it, but I can not understand for the life of me why you stay here when you feel the way you do.

My master is myself. I do not give away rights to the State like you do. The system that takes your wealth and forces you to comply with their laws is partially your master.

You have already claimed that you sign that tax return due to a gun to your head. I fail to see how you can somehow place yourself above me when you also take into account the fact that you say you will not fight when your unalienable rights are trampled upon due to your grand moral philosophy. I suppose you will leave the fighting up to the rest of us when that day comes. How rich.
You are no better than anyone else, just slightly more delusional.

September 17, 1787 was the day that tyranny increased.

You won't get back to March 1781 until you get back to September 17, 1787.
Just a whiny little cat in a bag.
/Smack
I'm not arguing with you anymore.
It's like punching a stick of pulp wood, Its stupid.
That doesn't mean you win these idiotic arguments either, it just means that I'm sick of trying to reason with you.

Stereotypically hampered by name with the masses the philosophical and moral elitists contort their faces in disgust. Despite the fact that more realistic goals are within their reach they choke on the pit and toss out the peach.

 

[Dianne]

I am not for open borders, and in-fact I am for deporting all those that are here illegally. As long as you and I and our children are forced to pay taxes without representation under a tyranical government; I am not for supporting big corporations getting cheap labor as we foot the bill. Now if your poultry plants want to hire illegals (and about 90% of their employees are), if they tell the government they will pay for all the entitlements as the foreign workers are here; I might reconsider. But they are breaking the backs of American workers by having us subsidize their low wage hacks. Cross the border pregnant, your entire hospital bill is paid for by the US taxpayer. Guess what, mine isn't.

If you stop the government subsidies for illegals... such as free college tuition in many states; free medical care, food stamps, etc.; the majority would go back home. But at the moment, we are paying all of their living expenses, as they undercut us and force our wages down. In-fact, I no longer have any wages.. everyone in the construction field has been impacted by this.

 

[The Patriot]

I am not for open borders, and in-fact I am for deporting all those that are here illegally. As long as you and I and our children are forced to pay taxes without representation under a tyranical government; I am not for supporting big corporations getting cheap labor as we foot the bill. Now if your poultry plants want to hire illegals (and about 90% of their employees are), if they tell the government they will pay for all the entitlements as the foreign workers are here; I might reconsider. But they are breaking the backs of American workers by having us subsidize their low wage hacks. Cross the border pregnant, your entire hospital bill is paid for by the US taxpayer. Guess what, mine isn't.

If you stop the government subsidies for illegals... such as free college tuition in many states; free medical care, food stamps, etc.; the majority would go back home. But at the moment, we are paying all of their living expenses, as they undercut us and force our wages down. In-fact, I no longer have any wages.. everyone in the construction field has been impacted by this.

Not to mention we subsidize the large corporate farms that hire these people.

 

[Met Income]

Like I said before, the entire premise of taking this country from a state of Corporatism to An Cap is ludicrous to begin with.
We still have our Constitution however and as difficult as it is to get our Government to follow it, that in itself is evidence itself that your An Cap philosophy is but a fantasy when placed in comparison to the struggle of returning The Republic to the Constitution,
Which is the most realistic goal to achieve first and foremost before anything else can be considered.

With that attitude, yes, anything is ludicrous and will never happen.

You won't get back to March of 1781 until you get back to September 17, 1787 and you certainly won't ever reach your fantasy of An Cap society until you return America back to it's roots. Continue to struggle like a cat in a bag if you wish while the sane among us work towards a more realistic goal.

I never said I didn't support incremental steps towards freedom. Where did I say otherwise? In this thread, you have tended to make many straw many arguments. Support of additional freedom doesn't contradict that the moral and logical conclusion would be complete liberty.

I understand Our Unalienable Rights and I appreciate Our Founders making it most clear on July 4th, 1776 through the Declaration and also through ratification of The Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791 and despite your insinuating differently, without those pieces of paper and the men who drew them up, I sincerely doubt that you and I would be carrying on this discussion at all.

The Bill of Rights was needed because the Constitution was such a gross expansion of centralized federal power from what we had. It was a concession after the tyrannical power that was given to the elites.

Are you a citizen of The United States of America?

No. I cannot be a member of a group that I did not join.

Do you not claim a gun is held to your head in order that you file a tax return and do you not fill it out anyway even though you defiantly claim you are not a citizen?
I don't know, is that not a little deceptive for one who claims such high and mighty morals above the rest of us mere citizens?



Do you not file that tax return? Oh yes, that's right, you do don't you?
That's quite a stretch in comparison there with The Boy Scouts of America vs. Birthright Citizenship to The United States of America. What an asinine comparison when the entire scope and topic of this thread to begin with is over boundaries and people illegally crossing them who would likely sell their own souls to trade places with you to be here and enjoy the freedoms that you have legally just for being born here. I can understand why they do it, but I can not understand for the life of me why you stay here when you feel the way you do.

You have already claimed that you sign that tax return due to a gun to your head. I fail to see how you can somehow place yourself above me when you also take into account the fact that you say you will not fight when your unalienable rights are trampled upon due to your grand moral philosophy. I suppose you will leave the fighting up to the rest of us when that day comes. How rich.
You are no better than anyone else, just slightly more delusional.
You won't get back to March 1781 until you get back to September 17, 1787.
Just a whiny little cat in a bag.
/Smack
I'm not arguing with you anymore.
It's like punching a stick of pulp wood, Its stupid.
That doesn't mean you win these idiotic arguments either, it just means that I'm sick of trying to reason with you.

Stereotypically hampered by name with the masses the philosophical and moral elitists contort their faces in disgust. Despite the fact that more realistic goals are within their reach they choke on the pit and toss out the peach.

Doing things under duress is not that same as doing something voluntarily. If a slave does what his master tells him, does that mean he's free?

I have not lied about anything. I am a slave, under no choice of my own, and I wish not to be one. I am not a citizen because I have chosen not to be one. How about we talk without guns in the room?

 

[Met Income]

I am not for open borders, and in-fact I am for deporting all those that are here illegally. As long as you and I and our children are forced to pay taxes without representation under a tyranical government; I am not for supporting big corporations getting cheap labor as we foot the bill. Now if your poultry plants want to hire illegals (and about 90% of their employees are), if they tell the government they will pay for all the entitlements as the foreign workers are here; I might reconsider. But they are breaking the backs of American workers by having us subsidize their low wage hacks. Cross the border pregnant, your entire hospital bill is paid for by the US taxpayer. Guess what, mine isn't.

If you stop the government subsidies for illegals... such as free college tuition in many states; free medical care, food stamps, etc.; the majority would go back home. But at the moment, we are paying all of their living expenses, as they undercut us and force our wages down. In-fact, I no longer have any wages.. everyone in the construction field has been impacted by this.

You're focusing on the effect, not the cause. Whenever you subsidize something, you get more of it. If you subsidize theft, you get more of it. Focus on the theft. Living and working is not immoral. Telling me who I cannot hire and rent to is a violation of my property rights. Do you believe in private property?

 

[WaltM]

You're focusing on the effect, not the cause. Whenever you subsidize something, you get more of it.

And some things are good to have more of.

If you subsidize theft, you get more of it. Focus on the theft. Living and working is not immoral.

even if it's at the expense of others?

Telling me who I cannot hire and rent to is a violation of my property rights. Do you believe in private property?

Telling you who you can't chain and whip is also, do you believe in enslaving rights?

 

[Met Income]

And some things are good to have more of.

Nothing should be subsidized, because it distorts the efficiency of the market.

even if it's at the expense of others?

Should you quit your job because someone else couldn't then work there? Capitalism involves competition.

Telling you who you can't chain and whip is also, do you believe in enslaving rights?

What is enslaving rights? I cannot involuntarily chain and whip someone because I do not own them. You cannot tell someone where they can and cannot work/live because you also do not own them.

 

[WaltM]

Nothing should be subsidized, because it distorts the efficiency of the market.

So Africans should starve to death because the market doesn't want to feed them? I guess by "efficiency of the market" you mean "let those who can't feed themselves disappear of they'll be a burden to us".

Should you quit your job because someone else couldn't then work there? Capitalism involves competition.

Competition is the euphemism for selfishness at the expense of others. No, I work hard and give my money away because I was taught people have a right to life and letting them starve is wrong.

What is enslaving rights? I cannot involuntarily chain and whip someone because I do not own them.

Says who you don't own them? What if you talked them into it without ever using force and they were stupid enough to accept it?

You cannot tell someone where they can and cannot work/live because you also do not own them.

so what's the proper action when somebody whips or chains his worker? Intervention? In the name of what? Why should hiring a person at a wage I dislike be more tolerable?

 

[Met Income]

So Africans should starve to death because the market doesn't want to feed them? I guess by "efficiency of the market" you mean "let those who can't feed themselves disappear of they'll be a burden to us".

I don't like people starving either, however, the solution is to have freer markets, not to send in government with guns.

Competition is the euphemism for selfishness at the expense of others. No, I work hard and give my money away because I was taught people have a right to life and letting them starve is wrong.

Competition is not a euphemism. It is what it is and you have no real right to intervene. I support your right to give your money away. You have no right to force others to give their money away or to distort the job market.

Says who you don't own them? What if you talked them into it without ever using force and they were stupid enough to accept it?

If you give something away voluntarily, fine. Involuntary actions are not morally justified, such as government action.

so what's the proper action when somebody whips or chains his worker? Intervention? In the name of what? Why should hiring a person at a wage I dislike be more tolerable?

The initiation of violence is not justified.

Intervention by the government, of course. That's what this entire thread has been about.

You don't have to like someone's wage rate, but you have no real right to intervene.

 

[WaltM]

I don't like people starving either, however, the solution is to have freer markets, not to send in government with guns.

You don't like it but better them starve than you, and better you free they die.

Competition is not a euphemism. It is what it is and you have no real right to intervene. I support your right to give your money away. You have no right to force others to give their money away or to distort the job market.

Does everything deserve to be privatized and competed for?

If you give something away voluntarily, fine. Involuntary actions are not morally justified, such as government action.

Where do you get your morals from? Are they of any meaning & purpose if they're not enforced?

The initiation of violence is not justified.

Intervention by the government, of course. That's what this entire thread has been about.

You don't have to like someone's wage rate, but you have no real right to intervene.

This is what I don't understand, you can voluntarily work for a low wage, but not for being whipped? Somehow one has the right to be free from whipping and chains, but not from being without money?

The proper action is intervention and you support it?

 

[Met Income]

You don't like it but better them starve than you, and better you free they die.

I don't like it and there is no better alternative than freedom.

Does everything deserve to be privatized and competed for?

The better question is, can anything be justified by the coercive monopoly of violence that is the government? And the answer is: no.

Where do you get your morals from? Are they of any meaning & purpose if they're not enforced?

In terms of the initiation of violence, we know that humans do not like violence being initiated against them, therefore, they shouldn't do it to others.

This is what I don't understand, you can voluntarily work for a low wage, but not for being whipped? Somehow one has the right to be free from whipping and chains, but not from being without money?

The proper action is intervention and you support it?

I didn't say that. If you consent to being whipped, then fine. Have at it. Some people are into that sort of thing, I guess.

 

[WaltM]

I don't like it and there is no better alternative than freedom.

freedom for all is better than survival for all, is that correct?

The better question is, can anything be justified by the coercive monopoly of violence that is the government? And the answer is: no.

I would answer yes.

In terms of the initiation of violence, we know that humans do not like violence being initiated against them, therefore, they shouldn't do it to others.

Yes, but bullies can get away with it and have less to lose, so why shouldn't he do what he can?

I didn't say that. If you consent to being whipped, then fine. Have at it. Some people are into that sort of thing, I guess.

so owning slaves is fine as long as it's consensual. How old must one be to make consent valid?

 

[Met Income]

freedom for all is better than survival for all, is that correct?



I would answer yes.





Yes, but bullies can get away with it and have less to lose, so why shouldn't he do what he can?



so owning slaves is fine as long as it's consensual. How old must one be to make consent valid?

Freedom IS better for survival and prosperity.

You cannot justify the initiation of force against another, sorry. How would you feel if I punched you in the face?

Anything that is consensual between two parties should not be stopped by another. I do not know when the age of consent is; it varies for each person I imagine.

 

[WaltM]

Freedom IS better for survival and prosperity.

Ok then.

You cannot justify the initiation of force against another, sorry.

Says you?

How would you feel if I punched you in the face?

I wouldn't like it too much, but who cares how I feel if you can get away with it?

I'm sure Africans don't like starving either, but who cares how they feel when people are allowed to have property and not obligated to feed them, and people like you say "freedom is more important than prosperity & survival"?

Anything that is consensual between two parties should not be stopped by another. I do not know when the age of consent is; it varies for each person I imagine.

I'd like to see you defend a statuotory rapist next time by saying "hey, how do you know that child wasn't old enough to consent?"

 

[Met Income]

Ok then.


Says you?

Says me? No, not says me. Says reality. Humans own themselves and no one else. And unless they are voluntarily into the BDSM thing, they do not want aggressive violence against them.

I wouldn't like it too much, but who cares how I feel if you can get away with it?

That wasn't the point. We're not talking about getting away something, we're talking about moral justification. I don't own you, so I cannot morally justify punching you as an act of aggression.

I'm sure Africans don't like starving either, but who cares how they feel when people are allowed to have property and not obligated to feed them, and people like you say "freedom is more important than prosperity & survival"?

You can feed them with your property as much as you want. Morally, you cannot justify taking other people's property to give to them. It's not yours to give.

I'd like to see you defend a statuotory rapist next time by saying "hey, how do you know that child wasn't old enough to consent?"

I've already told you that I am not qualified to say what the age of consent is. Gun to my head, I'd say it depends on the individual. Clearly, a three year old cannot consent and a thirty year old can. Between those ranges, who the hell knows?